Sunday, May 1, 2016

Dinesh D'souza seems to be straining credibility again.. But why
aren't people outside the echo chamber surprised? This post looks at his new 2016 book "Stealing
America." It is a laugher. Exposed for his own corruption and adultery, as
documented at his trial, D'souza attempts to lay the groundwork for a comeback
with a new package of propaganda and white lies - a laughable attempt to
"spin" his own corruption and exposure by playing the "prison
redemption" card, and presenting himself as some sort of
"martyr." In this new spin package, D'souza had this supposed epiphany by talking to the cons while he was incarcerated. You see homes, they told him some stuff
about gangs, and presto- our chap D'souza had the blinding insight that "criminal
gangs" can be likened to how "the liberals" (insert other
enemies here..:) operate. Dang! Who woulda thunk the cons were blessed with
such wit and wisdom?

certayfied gangsta...

Where these hardcore cons supposed to be homes?

But right off the bat D'souza's "redemption spin"
fails. He says that his "experience with criminal gangs" opened up
his eyes to the criminality of "the liberals." One cannot help but
fall to the floor laughing. For one thing, a panty-waist like D'souza got an
easy ride. He
served his sentence in a light security "confinement center" in San
DiegoCounty- at which he did not even have to spend the entire day, but checked in at night for 8 hours. He was then free to leave- the rest of the day was his. And he served a
mere 8 months- a slap on the wrist, after which he had to do some light duty community
service, and pay a piddling fine - chump change for a man raking in hundreds of thousands every year via his books and videos It is not a venue crawling with hard-core "criminal gangs."
Hell, the place seems like one of those celebrity prisons where affluent shallow white types like Paris Hilton go to serve their "sentences." The insinuation of a grizzled wise guy or hardcase gang-banger pulling
D'souza aside for "conferencing and commiseration" in said "CommunityConfinementCenter"
is totally ludicrous. Right off the bat, D'souza's "prison epiphany"
fails the smell test.

The easy ride- coddling wrongdoers?

What is ironic is that the right wing D'souza himself has railed
against "coddling" lawbreakers and criminal justice leniency, but turns out he himself benefited
from "coddling" with an easy-to-serve sentence, at a wrist slap venue, escaping two years of
hard time with REAL gang-bangers. Yet with such an easy sentence, the hypocrite whines about "persecution." Also ironic- it was the same
D'souza who rails against "irresponsible blacks" that himself was
caught out in conduct grossly irresponsible, including not only his bribery
scheme, but cheating on his wife, and on top of that, taking his mistress to a Christian conference. All of these are well documented at his
trial, and elsewhere.

Even more telling,
D'souza
who has railed against "a sense of entitlement" by "the liberals," blacks and other enemies, is himself a smug seeker of entitlement favor. As reported in several media outlets, he requested "a summer break" from this community service duties- teaching ESL kids at a local private school. Whoa! Tough duty bwoy! "With respect to [the] request that Mr. D'Souza's community service hours be `waived' from June 1, 2015, until July 13, 2015, the request is respectfully denied.. The short explanation is, as all criminal defendants are aware, that we don't provide `summer breaks' in these circumstances," federal judge Berman wrote.

Instead of finding an alternative means of performing community service when the school let out for the summer, D’Souza had his parole officer petition the court for a “summer break.” Rather lazy of you, eh old chap- you who has railed against "lazy" blacks. Why are YOU trying to get out of your own obligations? Interestingly (and it illustrates not only Dsouza's sense of entitlement but also his vanity), the probation officer included a copy of a Vanity Fair profile in the "summer break" request.- as if that puff piece was supposed to impress. To which the judge sardonically responded: “the court has no immediate reaction other than the article suggests several fertile areas of discussion during Mr. D’Souza’s required therapeutic counseling.” Sho nuff... Perhaps Dsouza thinks this is India where some puffery and influence can grease the skids, eh? Now what does this say about Dsouza's own invocation of "rational racism" as regards how certain minorities are viewed? The judge ordered counseling to continue because D'souza not only displays arrogance but seems to be unaware that he has done anything wrong. Mayhaps a little counseling with that non-summer break might help..http://www.salon.com/2015/05/06/dinesh_dsouzas_request_for_a_summer_break_from_community_service_gets_slapped_down_by_federal_judge/

Whining the "victim" card..

The second thing that stands out bout this book, aside from
the distorted "spin," is how D'souza continues whining. Constantly
trying to minimize his own culpability, he keeps playing the "victim"
card- oh dear- the heroic teller of truths, unjustly persecuted by
"politically correct" forces.. LOL.. Only D'souza's echo chamber of
acolytes or gullible flunkies buys this rubbish. He tried the same "victim card" approach
at his trial and drew a sharp rebuke from the judge who noted he was long on
portraying himself as a "victim" but short on acknowledging remorse
or responsibility for his actions. The judge dismissed D'souza's claims of
political prosecution as whining, and rebuked him repeatedly for his
self-serving explanations of the behavior he had pled guilty to. The judge even
quoted from a letter to the court from Mr. D’Souza’s white ex-wife, Dixie D’Souza, in
which she said he had a “flawed character and lack of truthfulness” and accused
him of physically abusing her. (NY Times- D’Souza Avoids Prison in Campaign
Finance Case. Sept. 23, 2014).

Yes "the liberals" can be gangsters but how come
we don't hear about conservative "gangstas"?

But this is typical D'souza, a vain, self-serving
distorter of the truth. His book is along the same intellectually dishonest lines, just as his book: "America- Imagine A World Without Her" is similarly dishonest. In "America" for example he claims that Obama was elected due to "white guilt." This laughable bit of rubbish, eaten up by the dull hordes of the right as "the truth" was debunked in detail earlier- where it was pointed out- Obama received about the same number of votes as previous white Dem politicians- like Clinton or Carter. White people did not go out of their way to vote for him, more, nor apparently were they impressed by the hapless "grizzly" Sarah Palin and John McCain the right wing put up as alternatives. But D'souza is a master at dealing in rubbish.

In "Stealing America" he tries yet more of the same shell game, attempting to drive home the claim as he writes that due to this alleged "epiphany"-
the current administration is essentially just a criminal machine/gang,
running things mostly to benefit themselves & their masters (bankers/corporate
globalist elitists). Hilary will continue the same "racket" he "learned." Whooo... What he doesn't mention is that conservatives
themselves are quite skilled at gangsterism- and indeed said conservatives were
at the forefront of, or cheered along the weakening of government regulations
designed to keep financial and other "gangsterism" in check. It was
under his hero Ronald Reagan for example that a huge wave of such deregulation
began, a trend that continued on into the George W Bush administration, as
detailed studies such as (Thomas O.
McGarity- Freedom to Harm: The Lasting Legacy of the Laissez Faire Revival-2013 demonstrate. This weakening was one of the key
components that led to the crash of 2007-2008- which by the way was accompanied
by a bailout package that was quite generous to the financial gangsters-
proposed initially by Bush. But none of this gets much ink in D'souza's
distorted world.

Indian D'souza himself benefited from allegedly "unneeded" Civil
Rights Laws or rulings- like freedom from segregation and freedom to
marry his white wife, something forbidden before "unneeded" civil rights
laws and supporting court decisions.

The Indian D'souza may not even have been allowed to become a citizen at
one time in America. In 1923 the US Supreme Court ruled that Asian
Indians were not eligible for
citizenship, stripping several naturalized Indians of citizenship. A
1922
federal law stipulated that women who married aliens ineligible for
citizenship would lose theirs- provisions not lifted until the 1940s.
Had he lived in America just 4 decades prior to his arrival he and his white wife might have been non-citizens. The
1921 and 1924 immigration law set numerical limits but only for Europeans. Other non-whites were banned. The book by Ian Haney 1996- White by law:
the legal construction of race" sets out the dismal facts in
detail. It took decades of struggle, suffering and sacrifice to get such
things reversed.

But along comes the hypocrite Dsouza to benefit on the
backs of those who suffered, even as he dismisses civil rights
protections as "unneeded" directly or by implication. Since he arrived
on American shores in 1978, well AFTER all the messy and ugly business
of the "unneeded" Civil Rights law he dismisses, he and white wife get
to stay in any public accommodations he chooses, can pretty much buy
housing where they want, and get to send their kids pretty much to the
schools they want, without being blocked and sandbagged by racist
Realtors, restaurant owners or bureaucrats. Furthermore, he and Dixie
lived in Virginia, a state that once imprisoned or threatened to
imprison interracial couples for the crime of "miscegenation." D'Souza
gets to have to both ways, He can dismiss Civil Rights laws as
"unneeded," because as an "honorary white" immigrant coming after the
fact, he can enjoy all the benefits of that which he dismisses, and never had to worry like
say, interracial couple Mildred Loving and her husband- miscegenation
"criminals" sentenced to jail or exile.

As a class, white women like Dsouza's wife Dixie benefited most from "affirmative action"..

The man with special
insight- on a special mission

His nickname among certain
press journalists "Distort Denewsa" is apt. Aside from his so-called
"epiphany" during which he allegedly "learned" from
"criminal gangs" the rest of the book is another rehash of talking
points he has made before. Gee ain't Obama awful, and won't Hilary be too?

One thing that doesn't make
it into his book is what he proposed in his 1996 tome
-"The End of Racism" - where be advocated re-appealing key provisions of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. He has never retracted this and his hypocritical
posturing that he had some sort of "special insight" into "race
relations" is the same approach he repeats in this book- only this time
the "special insight" he gains is due to "time spent" with
"criminal gangs"..

Pause... stifle laughter..

A scammer by any other
name- himself a beneficiary of "special preferences" ...

Finally D'souza organizes his
chapters to talk of "scams"- Chapter 5 the reparations scam, Chapter
6 the greed & inequality scam etc. Most of these chapters are simply repackaged talking points, presented with the usual snark and cherry picked anecdotes. But it really a "scam" to question the high levels of CEO pay especially involving companies they have run into trouble? Is it a "scam" to question the favoritism shown of the bankers and financiers who got bailed out in 2008/2009? Is it a "scam" to question police misconduct including pervasive falsification of arrest reports when certain things happen? Reasonable people can certainly disagree on the issues but why are so many areas of social policy waved aside as a "scam," save as a propaganda tactic to dismiss having to address the evidence or engage in honest debate?Dsouza reserves much rhetoric for being "agin" special "preferences" but as already noted above, "preferences" are quite beneficial to certain whites. Why is there so little in-depth discussion of that aspect? Ironically D'souza himself is the beneficiary of special
"affirmative action" preferences. He was appointed
"scholar" at prestigious Hoover Institute at Stanford for example,
despite having no serious scholarly publication, or peer reviewed article
published, and only having a BA in English. He was appointed president of
prestigious private KingsCollege despite no experience in academic administration, or
ministry. As one detailed analysis notes:

"He holds the
post of“scholar” [Rishwain Scholar at StanfordUniversity’s prestigious Hoover Institution] but has
earned only a BA in English from Dartmouth where he eventually transferred. At age 26,
he served as Senior Domestic Policy Analyst under Reagan without a shred of
serious policy training. In fact D’Souza, the political “expert,” has no
training whatsoever in social science. Moreover, he has been appointed to two
research institute positions without a single peer- reviewed essay or
publication. And, perhaps not surprisingly, he is treated as a serious
intellectual in the media and publishing world despite the remarkable lack of
research that goes into his books.

As an immigrant
“success” story, his is more reminiscent of the political patronage and
smoke-filled backroom promotions of over a century ago—only this time ethnicity
and tribalism are denounced and denied as the source of D’Souza’s power. In
reality, D’Souza has little in the way of credentials or training to merit any
of his promotions... If Dinesh D’Souza were not East Indian, he would simply
have no role to play for the Right: there would be no White House credentials,
no appointments as “scholar,” and no press."

Oh by the way- D'souza as seen previously had some kind things to say about "rational racism" - but he didn't need special insight from "criminal gangs" to draw his conclusions. Bottom line- if you want good entertainment by a skillful,
self-serving fibber and distorter this book is for you. If you want a standard
rehash of right wing talking points, cheered along by an echo chamber of
"the faithful" then this book is certainly for you. If not, skip it. Note this review does not apply to other works where D'souza seems more sincere such as his books on Christianity- but hypocrisy and mendacity not sincerity seem more to mark this one. Perhaps his polemic should be called "Stealing Credibility."

DSouza's personal background is relevant because he himself references it on several occasions- implying special insight, he thinks black government employment is "parasitical" (but not employment of white people by government) , and he wants to roll back the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Dang shame that a black man can eat his hamburger in peace next to some white people...The brown man with the "special racial insight." On several occasions Dsouza references himself as having some sort of special insight into racial matters and discrimination, as in his 1991 book "Illiberal Education" and in appearances on media shoes such as the MacNeil/Lehrer NEwshour (June 18, 1991) where he specifically points to his Indian background and insinuates how it gives him some sort of special insight into America's racial situation. See page 22- Illiberal Education, where he talks about being from India and how he got involved due to his background in this heterogeneous society. On the MacNeil/Lehrer appearance he opines that America is becoming a multiracial society and the whole issue is "transcending black and white" again implying that he has some sort of special insight because of this "diverse" background - the straight-talking minority guy who says things others dare not say. A self-flattering picture indeed, but one that raises its own questions.

Oh those "parasitical" Negroes working for government- but white people doing the same - hey, you're OK. In 1996's "The End of Racism" he condemns high levels of black employment in government as "parasitical", saying nary a word about high levels among whites, like white southerners, or groups like the white Irish, who fed and feed extensively from the government trough, and indeed used their control of municipal governments to discriminate against other groups. Indeed, as late as the early WW2 era, fully ONE-THIRD of the white Irish were working for government. As historians Bayor and Meager- 1996 show- quote:

"As a consequence, the public sector employed a full
one-third of first, second and third-generation Irish Americans in 1930
compared with just 6 percent in 1900. This patronage helped produce a heavy
concentration of Irish in jobs on the fire and police departments and in
municipally owned subways, streetcars, waterworks and port facilities. Many of
the city's Irish middle class worked on the public payroll, especially in the
public schools, and thousands of others labored in construction jobs tied to
city expenditures. For second-generation Irish-American women, jobs as schoolteachers
were the most sought-after career. Such patronage policies would help to bind
the Irish working class and much of the middle class Tammany Hall for another
generation."

--Bayor and Meagher 1996. The New York
Irish, p. 313

Looks like white people are doing pretty well as far as government checks. But only blacks are dismissively singled out by D'souza on this score. Predictably, he also does not mention the high levels of government employment in his own native India, nor the high levels of government employment among white women, like his wife Dixie. It is only blacks who are targeted as the "parasites" never whites, and certainly not white women like his wife.

The brown man also wants to roll back the Civil Rights Act of 1964- even though he himself benefited nicely by it. In his
1996 book "The End of Racism" he advocates just such a course- page 544- quote: "Am
I calling for a repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Actually, yes. The law
should be changed so that its nondiscrimination provisions apply only to
government."

The fact that this self-styled observer with supposed special insight on "diversity" would roll back key provisions (equal treatment from all serving the public) of this critical legislation, provisions in public accommodation that even conservative Republican presidents said needed to be fixed to improve America's overseas standing and to affirm America's commitment to equality for all, and from which he himself and his wife have benefited, testifies to immigrant D'souza's hypocrisy and lack of understanding of some of the deepest threads of America's racial history.

It is easy for Dsouza to speak breezily about "unneeded" legislation when you benefit from it, and never had to live under constant harassment and stigma for over a century. Arriving in America in 1978, Dsouza was/is the beneficiary of over a century of civil rights struggle. It is relatively easy for him to speak dismissively of civil rights- he reaps the benefits while decrying the vehicle. The work of removing barriers was already done when D'souza arrived on US soil. He was free to board any public transportation and take any properly available seat, free to buy property in the neighborhood of his choice, free to check into any hotel, free to eat at any restaurant, free to send his kids to local schools (D'souza arrived after legal battles forced an end to school segregation in Arizona for example and was thus free to attend the school of his choice), and free to marry and take around his white wife, and enjoy all of the above with her, without official harassment or criminal charge due to race, or being denied the above benefits or continually harassed by private transactors because of his race. It is doubtful for example if he had to undergo the indignity of being turned away, frozen out, or denied service when he honeymooned with his wife, or took her to a restaurant, or tried to buy their first house. Aside from the fact that under earlier Arizona law, D'souza as a "Mongolian" could not have legally married his Caucasian wife, discriminatory practices by private transactors in restaurants, housing, public accomodations and other venues against non-whites were common in Arizona prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent years of enforcement. Perhaps as a self-styled "honorary white," reaping the protection of the very law he dismisses, Dsouza has the privilege of never having to worry.

It is also curious that D'souza, who married said white woman, faced the objections of her parents, who did not want the girl to marry an Indian. Dsouza says he was hurt, but like a true "honorary white," considers the objection to be "ethnocentrism" not "racism". But again, due to "unneeded" Civil Rights legislation, D'souza can get away with it, and build a comfortable life for his wife free of private harassment, persecution and significant discrimination, unlike interracial couples who faced jail sentences, and vicious legal and extra-legal harassment, including physical assault and murder. But hey, maybe what they faced was mere "ethnocentrism."

This is a review of Shelby Steel's recent book "Shame."
Overall, Steele serves up a disingenuous lightweight tome heavy on personal
anecdote but short on in-depth analysis. The book seems basically a retread of
his 2007 book "White Guilt" but with more personal details. This
rehashed tome also fails, and does so on 6 counts.

1) STEELE STUCK IN THE PAST WITH STALE, EVEN BOGUS ARGUMENTS:

Much of his analysis is standard conservative boilerplate on
the evils of liberalism, boilerplate we have all heard and read about for well
nigh 2 decades. He feels "liberals" are stuck in the past, using America's
racial sins to grab power. But some of Steele's own arguments also seem "stuck in the
past," like an old curmudgeon steadfastly banging his cane on the front
porch, as he recites long debunked "truths."

Affirmative action" for example has been watered down
to trivial proportions for well over a decade- from limits or restrictions
imposed by courts, to citizen initiatives like California's Prop 209 which took
place in 1996, OVER 20 YEARS AGO. Set aside programs have been much watered
down- since the 1980s both by legislative and executive action and by court
cases such as Adarand and Croson (circa 1989 and 1995), over 2 decades ago. The
notion that "the liberals" are somehow throwing America
into a "crisis" of using these long hollowed out policies as a
mechanism to grab power is dubious.

And the flip side is that conservatives may be cynically
using such long weakened and ineffective policies and alleged "white
suffering" under "quotas" as a talking point, and mobilization
mechanism for their own purposes-to
keep their "base" in a perennial state of indignation. Furthermore
CONSERVATIVE scholars like his fellow black conservative Thomas Sowell has
shown that AA is not much responsible for black economic advance, which is a
long-standing trend since the 1950s. Steele and other conservatives know this
yet they still keep pushing the same bogus propaganda line re "affirmative
action." - like Ann Coulter in her recent book "Mugged."

Let's look at such tactics- take welfare. Are "the liberals" using government programs like "welfare"
as a mechanism to "grab" power? This old, stale charge is so laughably
out of date that it doesn't deserve comment, yet for Steele, and other
conservative dinosaurs, it is a virtual article of faith. Indeed several polls
of white Americans seem them clinging to the notion that most black people are
on welfare, when in fact only about 14% of black Americans receive AFDC. You
wouldn't know this though from the barrage of right wing propaganda. And are
"the culluds" eating up more and more welfare by ye olde hardworking
white Amurricans? So it would seem according to the white right-wing propaganda mills, but
in fact when adjusted for inflation welfare benefits have actually DECLINED in
the 1980s and 1990s. Indeed it was a liberal Democrat, Clinton that enacted
welfare reform that reduced the rolls on into the 2000s. Furthermore, as several
studies show states with higher proportions of poor black recipients gave
relatively LESS welfare than states with higher proportions of white
beneficiaries- with whites being favored overall with more generous benefits-
even though the blacks were poorer. (Durr and Hill 2006- Race, Work, and Family
in the Lives of African Americans).

So with less people on welfare, with welfare benefits
declining, and with white people deriving more relative benefit from welfare,
why do conservatives continue to cynically and dishonestly feed the propaganda
mills grist about "all the blacks on welfare" and "increasing
government welfare" etc etc? We know why of course- so they can pump up
the white base and keep it perennially angry.

Examples can be easily multiplied here race is concerned, whether it be Goldwater and Nixon's cynical "southern Strategy," to bogus claims about "unqualified blacks" allegedly "swamping" workplaces due to "quotas." Steele spends a lot of time bashing "the liberals"
for "polarizing" America,
but he carefully avoids shining the spotlight on conservatives for their
dishonest and cynical role in promoting the self-same "polarization."

3) IT'S NOT ONLY LIBERALS WHO PLAY THE "VICTIM"
CARD BUT CONSERVATIVES AS WELL.

Steele asserts that liberals deal in "poetic
truth" as a reaction to the shames of America's
past- like racism etc., and a world of victims and victimizers. This is true as
to SOME liberals, but the same could also be said of SOME conservatives- who
proffer "victim truth" and portray whites as innocent
"sufferahs" at the hands of evil liberals and minorities- you know-
like white welfare recipients - "victims" who on average receive
HIGHER benefits that black recipients even though the black ones are in greater
need (Durr and Hill 2006). or the paltry 2-4% of minority students admitted to
say top tier Ivy universities under preference policies, compared to the 10-30%
of white "legacies" admitted under preferential policies, or white
women "victims" who are the primary beneficiaries of
"affirmative action." (Sowell 2004) Its mostly the black admittees that
draw right wing bile and scorn you see. White people mostly get a relative
pass. In short, white conservatives are just as cynical and hypocritical as
liberals, and have their own version of "political correctness" -
i.e. "conservative correctness" as a simplistic answer for America's
ills.

Steele also posits the late 1960s before "affirmative
action" as some sort of golden age, an age of "authority"
compared to the liberal initiated age of "authenticity." He
references white elites and the Black Panthers etc etc.. But all this is
laughably dated and obsolete, and time and time again, Steele appears stuck in
the past. His personal anecdotes as to growing up in the 1950s and so on, only
reinforce the case. News flash to Steele who in the early 1970s was a well placed
academic at a university (San Jose State that was heavily recruiting minority professors under its own "affirmative action" program), and could marry his white wife and float above the fray: it was no
"golden age." In fact it was a time of still present open racism and strong counter-reaction. Just ask
conservative favorite Richard Nixon when he tried to persuade white unions to
start complying with basic civil rights laws. They ignored or stonewalled him
to the point that an exasperated Nixon put the hammer down and inaugurated his
famous, landmark "affirmative action" Philadelphia Plan, that
actually forced racist white unions to open up previously "reserved"
jobs for whites to all Americans. Or just ask black workers denied promotions
or held back, or black job seekers locked out of the market by white racism, or
black housing seekers locked out decent accommodations. It took the hammer
blows of lawsuits, protests as well as shifting economic and demographic
circumstances to effect change. The average black person did not have the
luxury of flitting about as a relatively well paid college professor in San Jose.

Steele also offers breathless statements such as that the desire
for equality has trumped freedom, virtue and honesty. This may be so in SOME
cases, as many can see re "PC"college campus excesses. But in others, the desire to preserve white privilege and sandbag black
progress has also trumped freedom, virtue and honesty. Steele himself warns his
readers not to naively assume that racism has disappeared, but he stops there, and can't candidly examine
the conservative side of the equation for that would undermine his whole
position and persona. There is nothing wrong with being a black conservative,
its finding an HONEST black conservative willing to speak candidly about the
right wing that's a problem. To speak candidly would undermine their position
and the support they get from the white right.

As for honesty and character being undermined by
preferential programs, this is so as to SOME instances, but there is the flip
side that again Steele ducks and avoids. What about honesty and character in conservative dealings on race? Or even in some of the white preferences which
are as strong as ever- from the quiet networks that ensure only white friends,
relatives and cronies "get the hookup", to the subtle policy manipulations
that price "the culluds" out of certain venues, to bureaucratic rules
that do the same, to numerous other subtle, behind the scenes webs of white manipulation and deception. Scholars have long detailed such things.
Again, Steele dare not open that can of worms, less his own burnished image as
a "straight talking" man of courage be exposed as less than
advertised.

Most banish shame to a past era- long ago- hence the popular
white refrain: "I had nothing to do with owning slaves." This is the
default white position.Contrary to
Steele's notion, the detailed work of scholars like Eduardo Bonilla-Silva
(Racism Without Racists), for example, demonstrates in depth that whites are
mostly indifferent or in deep denial about any "shame." In fact in poll
after poll whites typically dismiss their own culpability or complicity in
creating racial inequality in America,
and heavily blame black people for every ill besetting them. And as others like
author Tim Wise show 2009- (Between Barack and A Hard Place) as early as 1963, whites in polls were dismissing black
concerns saying that blacks had just as good opportunities as whites in the
workplace or in education. This same white fantasy denial or dismissal
mentality continues on into some of today's polls. Many whites for example
still seem to think a majority of blacks are on welfare (a bogus notion), or
that black folk depend to any significant extent on "affirmative action
quotas" which are creating cruel burdens for suffering white people (another
bogus notion) and a host of other erroneous beliefs and attitudes. Indeed, even
when whites know these notions are false, they still keep pushing such
distorted propaganda (particularly white right wingers)in order to dismiss black concerns. In short,
when the total picture is looked at, most white people are not in any
"shame" mode at all.

Poll data reinforces the impression. For example a CNN/USA
Today/Gallup Poll of 1001 adults, 820 white and 146 black in 2002 did not show
white people in any paroxysm of alleged "shame." 9 out of 10 white
Americans for example rejected reparations; 62% rejected any government apology
for legally permitting slavery.In the
1980s and beyond, polls shows consistently strong white opposition to
affirmative action. In five separate Gallup
polls for example between 1977 and 1989, no more than 11 percent of whites
endorsed preferential treatment for minorities.

Steele fails to even minimally address data on actual white
thinking and behavior, serving up instead personal incidents such as his spiel
about "white guilt" at the "TED" conference, or how he
experienced segregated swimming pools when he was growing up, or how the white
teammates on his swim team excluded him from their summer gatherings with the
connivance of the white coach. These 1950s/1960s personal anecdotes are all well and good,
even touching, but for a real exploration of the topic one needs to pull in
credible data and reference and what other in-depth writers have written.
Steels fails to do either.

5) STEELE URGES CONSERVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO
"POLARIZATION" BUT HAS SUSPICIOUSLY
LITTLE TO SAY ABOUT "POLARIZING" CONSERVATIVE RACISM, WHICH IS ALIVE AND WELL.

Steele's attempts to psychoanalyze Americans on race show
some insight, but again, he is overly heavy on personal opinion and anecdote.
What have others who have studied race relations in depth written we want to
know and how do you respond to that? Steele has little to say, giving the book
a thin feel. There has been a huge amount on the topic- why don't you address
at least a portion of it? Steele cops out. Indeed he says he is not going to
give any solutions because "we all know what the solutions are" such
as being nice, good manners etc.. Really? So smiling at lot at black people (or
vice versa for whites) will help erase "white guilt"? Who woulda
thunk?

Strangely enough, of those "solutions we all know"
Steele does not mention stopping the continual distortion of black history and
achievements by white right wingers (like Ann Coulter and others for example) nor does he
give much attention to the rise of a significant white "heriditarian"
movement- linked with Charles Murray of Bell Curve fame and many such others- that
is dedicated to disparaging black intelligence, history and accomplishments,
while presenting whites as virtuous paragons of "merit", family
stability, and peacefulness.

This white "heriditarian" movement for example,
has found a welcome home on the Internet where its propaganda organs churn out
distortion around the clock. It is much more sophisticated that the snarling Ku
Kluxers of old, churning out distorted claims, sleight of hand analyses,
even bogus data to lend its racialist agenda a scientific veneer. And this is not simply Internet trolls. A well-funded network of right wing think tanks, books and conferences, led by established, degreed academics such as Linda Gottfredson, Richard Lynn or Tatu VanHaven, with ties to prestigious conservative publications such as National Review, and deep-pocketed bankrollers such as the Pioneer Fund are well embedded in the mix. And they do a broad mix of distortion and misrepresentation on black people. Somehow Shelby Steele's "solution" misses such things. Backward
black evolution is a favorite meme. High number of black abortions? Well what
can we expect from people that are backward even from "evolution"? Of
course the propagandists don't mention that the highest rate of abortion in the
world are by alleged white "role models"- Russia kills 2 white babies
for each live birth.

Heavy black street
violence? Well of course- and what can be expected from these backward humans
with their oversupply of testosterone and so on? Why there may even be a
"violence gene" with "these people." Of course few in the
heriditarian propaganda chambers mention white groups with similar high rates
of violence,- like the white Irish, or the greatest expression of systematic
murder of all time- the Holocaust. You see they can't possible be "a white
thing." But when blacks are involved, yes of course black
"evolution" or black "culture" is to blame. White people
are alwaysnice and virtuous. Heaven
forbid anyone apply the same reasoning in reverse and attribute such negatives
to whiteness. Much of the above is sugarcoated or veiled with the right codewords, and has found wide play on the popular Internet.

Typical of his lightweight, dishonest approach, Steele
avoids such issues, even though they are significant, and they do have a direct
bearing on the matter of alleged white "shame" including the continued denialist posture some white conservatives take.

6) STEELE'S ANECDOTES SEEM CONTRADICTORY AT TIMES AND
STRAIN CREDIBILITY, AS IN HIS CLARENCE THOMAS EXAMPLE

For example he claims
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a "victim" of
"liberalism" - from "dissociation"- liberalism's guiding
light. But the example he gives is unconvincing. According to Steele, Clarence
Thomas virtually pitched his Yale Law degree away into an obscure corner where
it now gathers dust, devalued because of connections with "affirmative
action." Perhaps, but Thomas himself benefited from AA to get into Yale.
To maintain consistency he now has to disparage his own Yale degree, for which
we are told by Steele he worked so hard? Steele's use of the example seems all
too convenient- and ties into the white right-wing narrative about supposedly
"psychologically crippled" black folk due to "quotas."It's all a bit too pat.

But there is another explanation that Steele misses
entirely- one he would know if he honestly addressed the topic. Thomas' Yale
experience was devalued not merely because of his initial AA entry or "quotas", but because
white networks of privilege had little use for a small town black man with no
connections. How often such white networks give their own a leg up on the mere
basis of "potential" while a black man has to work twice as hard to
get a minimal foothold. This is the narrative that runs through hundreds of
reminiscencesof successful blacks. It
is strangely missing from Steele'sdiscussion.

It is true that Thomas was disappointed because big money
offers did not come his way. But in fact he applied to mostly white law firms
in the south (not exactly a region of progressivism, or higher salaries), and he did in fact refuse some
job offers as beneath him, when told he would be put on pro bono work. He was
crushed that white classmates were getting better offers. But was this due to
the "taint" of "affirmative action" or to the old truth
most qualified black job seekers know- if you are white- white networks will
reach out to and help you to much more lucrative opportunities than if you are
black. That is the reality. Steele curiously avoids discussing this in any detail. Yes, it is true that Thomas found out that a mere
Yale degree for a small town black man like him was worth less because he did
not have the larger web of connections and white networks white graduates have.
There were preferential white legacy admission to Yale no doubt who strolled
out with a mediocre "gentleman's C" and got coddled by the white
networks, and perhaps made out better than a more dedicated guy like Clarence Thomas.
Sure. But that's white privilege, which Steele continually minimizes, downplays or avoids discussing.

And in fact Thomas DID benefit from his supposedly
"useless" Yale credential to obtain a series of high profile slots,
beginning with an appointment by a white Republican who was attorney general of Missouri AND a
Yale graduate. The "old school connection" DID benefit Clarence
Thomas after all. And in future years, the same supposedly "useless"
Yale degree was touted by the Republicans that appointed him to those slots. He
would not have gone so far without that Yale degree. These facts are well known
from the publicity surrounding Thomas' court nomination. But Steele carefully
skirts around them.

The fact that Steele keeps minimizing or avoiding discussion
of white privilege, though the same white privilege hurt, or seemingly devalued
his hero Clarence Thomas, shows that Steele is not being honest with the
reader. He says liberals "disassociate" whites from such nice things
as virtue, exceptionally, etc and connect them with hypocrisy and evil. This is sheer nonsense as far as a general statement though somewhere, on some campus, no doubt white lefties or SOME liberals do this. But since when have liberals failed to "associate" white people with all those good things? To the contrary, most liberals pat themselves on the back for progressive reforms that DO "associate" white people with assorted goodness. Furthermore it does not take "liberals" to show plenty of credible "association" of
whites with hypocrisy and evil. Dry history makes the case, as do conservative bible thumpers opposed to slavery back in the 1800s, among others. And Steele's Clarence Thomas example illustrates white
hypocrisy in part, just as that same hypocrisy denies or minimizes the painful
burdens and barriers imposed on blacks, blames them for their entire plight,
and continues to generate a massive propaganda narrative of distortion about
black history and achievements- such as the myth that "affirmative
action" is responsible for black economic advances. See Ann Coulter's
"Mugged" for an example of this cynical white, right wing distortion. Steele's "disassociation" argument is laughable on some counts.

SUMMARY

To sum up, while Steele makes some fair criticisms of
liberalism, they are nothing new and are basically a retread of the same anti
"politically correct" positions other conservatives have made for
years. This gives the book a stale feel- it really does seem like a rehash of
stuff he has written before or that one has heard for the last 2 decades. I
mean we know America is no longer the legal apartheid state that it was as
recently as the 1960s, and things have changed immensely for the better from
those days on many counts, but circa 2015, is it really a "fresh"
blinding insight that school integration has not matched the "ideal"
black-white body counts advocated by SOME liberal proponents? Whoa.. like this
is news? An did people in the 1960s really expect some sort of racial nirvana with the passage of civil rights laws? ML King certainly did not, nor did Malcolm X, nor most black citizens, nor most white ones with any decent knowledge about America's race struggles.

A number of reviewers have touted the book as offering a
so-called "fresh" approach but it seems stale and recycled, not "fresh." A second major
weakness is Steele disingenuousness. He has plenty to say to bash "the
liberals" about "polarizing" America, yet carefully skips over
cynical and dishonest "conservative correctness" and its own
divisiveness and polarization" tactics. This makes the book much less
useful than it would have been as a way to get some clear analysis and answers
on the American dilemma.